## Facts

- The United States and Haiti entered a 1981 agreement under which the U.S. Coast Guard would stop vessels traveling from Haiti and return undocumented persons who were not refugees, with Haiti providing assurances against harm.
- After increased migration following political upheaval in Haiti, President George H. W. Bush issued Executive Order No. 12,807 (1992).
- The Executive Order directed the Coast Guard to intercept Haitian vessels on the high seas and return passengers to Haiti without first determining refugee status, and to conduct repatriations only beyond the U.S. territorial sea.
- Haitian Centers Council and interdicted Haitian nationals alleged many interdicted persons were fleeing persecution and that summary returns constituted unlawful forced repatriation.
- Respondents sued to block the interdiction-repatriation program, alleging violations of INA § 243(h)(1) and Article 33 of the Refugee Convention (via the 1967 Protocol).
- The district court denied injunctive relief, concluding § 243(h)(1) did not protect aliens in international waters and that the Convention’s provisions were not self-executing.
- The Second Circuit reversed, holding § 243(h)(1) and Article 33 protected refugees regardless of location.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether INA § 243(h)(1) bars the United States from interdicting and returning undocumented aliens intercepted on the high seas to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened.
2. Whether Article 33 of the Refugee Convention prohibits returning refugees intercepted on the high seas to territories where they would face persecution.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and upheld the interdiction-repatriation program.
- The Court held INA § 243(h)(1) was not intended to apply extraterritorially and did not restrict high-seas repatriations carried out by the Coast Guard under presidential direction.
- The Court held Article 33 likewise was not intended to apply to actions taken outside U.S. territory and did not constrain high-seas interdiction and return.
- The Court relied on statutory structure and the presumption against extraterritoriality, concluding neither provision limited the President’s authority to order repatriation of interdicted migrants beyond U.S. territorial waters.
- Justice Blackmun dissented, reading the statutory and treaty text to bar forced returns that would expose refugees to persecution, regardless of where the return occurred.

## Legal Principles

- Federal statutes are presumed not to apply outside U.S. territory absent a clear indication of extraterritorial reach.
- INA § 243(h)(1) governs domestic exclusion and deportation procedures administered by the Attorney General and does not regulate Coast Guard interdictions and repatriations on the high seas.
- Article 33’s non-refoulement obligation, as applied in U.S. law, does not extend to a state’s actions toward noncitizens outside its territory during high-seas interdiction.
- Absent a clearly applicable statutory or treaty limit, the Executive may conduct maritime interdiction and repatriation beyond U.S. territorial waters.

## Conclusion

The Court held that neither INA § 243(h)(1) nor Article 33 of the Refugee Convention restricts the United States from intercepting Haitian migrants on the high seas and returning them to Haiti without refugee screening, because neither provision was intended to operate extraterritorially.


Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993)